Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Kyle Siler,Philippe Vincent-Lamarre,Cassidy R. Sugimoto,Vincent Larivière

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02906-8

IF: 64.8

2021-10-26

Nature

Abstract:To thwart publishing rackets that undermine scholars and scholarly publishing, legitimate journals should show their workings.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Greetings from your predatory journal! What they are, why they are a problem, how to spot and avoid them

Florence Cook,Roganie Govender,Peter A Brennan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2023.02.005

Abstract:Predatory publishers, also known as counterfeit, deceptive, or fraudulent, are organisations that exploit the open-access scholarly model by charging hefty article processing charges (APCs), often without the scientific rigour and ethical processes offered by legitimate journals. Their rising prevalence is of concern to the scientific community, as the consequences of falling victim to them can negatively impact academic integrity and reputation, and render an author's work worthless and untrustworthy. Common characteristics include inappropriate marketing and misrepresentation of services by targeting individuals with solicitation emails, inadequate peer-review processes, lack of editorial services and transparency about APCs, and false claims about citation metrics and indexing that cannot be verified. Given the infiltration of predatory publishers, authors are advised to proceed with caution when receiving solicitation emails and if in doubt, to follow the Think, Check, Submit checklist.
Paper trail

Frederik Joelving,Retraction Watch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado0309

IF: 56.9

2024-01-20

Science

Abstract:In the latest twist of the publishing arms race, firms churning out fake papers have taken to bribing journal editors

multidisciplinary sciences
Journals need to provide better guidance for victims of plagiarism

Andrew M Colman,Tim Stokes,Elaine Gurr,Carolyn Tarrant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q226

2024-01-29

BMJ

Abstract:Plagiarism in published research articles is a threat to the integrity of the scientific record, and it seems to be on the increase—boosted by the growing industry of predatory publishing.1 Open access journals of dubious quality exploit researchers by charging publication fees for rapid publication without rigorous scrutiny. Demand for easy and rapid publication of articles, in turn, arises from the increasingly competitive market in academic jobs and the demand this creates for researchers to publish journal articles. Plagiarism in predatory journals threatens to erode the integrity of higher degrees and CVs, and hence potentially the expertise of doctors, scientists, and other professionals, and of the academics who train them.23We discovered in March 2022 that an article we'd published4 had been plagiarised in an obscure journal.5 We might never have known of the plagiarism had we not been alerted to it by a student who spotted the duplication. The plagiarising...

medicine, general & internal
[Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity]

María Francisca Abad-García

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpedi.2018.11.003

Abstract:This article presents an analysis of the concept of plagiarism in order to show the wide spectrum of manifestations that can be considered as such when committing a transgression of intellectual property, carried out with the intention of deceiving the authors' true contribution and the originality and novelty of the information. The article describes the concurrent circumstances in intentional plagiarism, and the damage that this misconduct causes in the credibility of the scientific system, in which authorship credit is the foundation of the academic career, of the prestige of the author in the scientific community, and the basis for research funding. Some circumstances are favouring this fraud: the pressure exerted on researchers by the criteria used for promotion and reward that prioritise the quantity of works on their quality, the existence of a market for the purchase and sale of scientific articles, and the proliferation of predatory journals that operate without or minimal ethical standards. Finally, the paper highlights the convenience of the adoption of criteria that prioritise the intrinsic quality of the work versus its quantity, including the active involvement of the institutions in the development of active policies for the prevention, detection, and punishment of the cases of potential fraud, and emphasize that, in the end, the prevention of fraud relies on the individual adoption of an ethical and responsible behaviour.
"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

Alice Fleerackers,Laura L Moorhead,Juan Pablo Alperin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.24.604934

2024-07-26

Abstract:Predatory journals--or journals that prioritize profits over editorial and publication best practices--are becoming more common, raising concerns about the integrity of the scholarly record. Such journals also pose a threat for the integrity of science journalism, as journalists may unwillingly report on low quality or even highly flawed studies published in these venues. This study sheds light on how journalists navigate this challenging publishing landscape through a qualitative analysis of interviews with 23 health, science, and environmental journalists about their perceptions of predatory journals and strategies for ensuring the journals they report on are trustworthy. We find that journalists have relatively limited awareness and/or concern about predatory journals. Much of this attitude is due to confidence in their established practices for avoiding problematic research, which largely centre on perceptions of journal prestige, reputation, and familiarity, as well as writing quality and professionalism. Most express limited awareness of how their trust heuristics may discourage them from reporting on smaller, newer, and open access journals, especially those based in the Global South. We discuss implications for the accuracy and diversity of the science news that reaches the public.

Biology
Retractions: Stamp out fake peer review

Jian Gao,Tao Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/546033a

IF: 64.8

2017-01-01

Nature

Abstract:In the wake of large-scale retraction scandals, we urge scientific publishers to be more proactive in stamping out fake peer-reviewing practices. They should work with editors, authors and research institutes to implement an effective system of precautions and penalties. Fraudulent peer review can arise when editors rely on authors' recommended reviewers. These names are often genuine but have a false e-mail address that enables the authors to write a favourable review of their own paper. Springer Nature, also the publisher of Nature, this year retracted 107 papers from one of its journals on the basis of fake peer review (see T. Stigbrand Tumor Biol. doi.org/b7gg; 2017). Two years ago, it retracted 64 articles in 10 of its journals on similar grounds (see Nature doi.org/b7gh; 2015). In our view, retracting such papers is not enough. Editors need to double-check the authenticity of potential reviewers and insist that authors provide academic identities for their suggested reviewers, including institutional e-mail addresses, ORCID identifiers and Scopus Author IDs. Journals should confidentially share each other's databases of falsified reviewers' details and of offending authors. Publishers could then reject new submissions from those authors for a set period. National academic committees and research institutes might consider revoking research funding for such authors and demoting them. Subscribe to comments
Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

Tove Faber Frandsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1214

2019-01-01

Learned Publishing

Abstract:Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publication, and consequently, predatory journals are feared to be a threat to the credibility of science as they perform no or low‐quality peer review. The question of why researchers decide to publish in a questionable journal remains relatively unexplored. This paper provides an overview of the existing literature on why researchers decide to publish papers in questionable journals, specifically whether or not they search for a low‐barrier way to getting published while being aware that the chosen journal probably does not adhere to acceptable academic standards. The choice of a publication outlet can be seen as a submission tree that consists of various incentives, and explaining why authors publish in deceptive journals may thus consist of a combination of awareness and motivational factors. Awareness and motivation of diligent authors is very different from that of unethical authors. Unethical authors may use a lack of awareness to excuse their actions, but they may actively search for a low‐barrier way to getting published. As there are different types of authors who publish in deceptive journals, we need different approaches to solve the problem.

information science & library science
How to avoid being duped by predatory journals

Eva Amsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q452

2024-03-07

BMJ

Abstract:Some journals capitalise on researchers’ and clinicians’ need for publications by luring them in with flattering emails, only to subject them to poor editing practices and threatening invoices. The best way to avoid this is to learn to spot the warning signs, writes Eva Amsen

medicine, general & internal
Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review

Sefika Mertkan,Gulen Onurkan Aliusta,Nilgun Suphi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab032

2021-09-25

Research Evaluation

Abstract:Abstract Intensified pressure to publish is a hallmark of a rapidly evolving higher education field where the faculty of any hue cannot avoid the ‘publish or perish’ treadmill. Growing need to publish more and to do so fast have resulted in the proliferation of pseudo scholarly publications many regards as ‘predatory’. This article provides a systematic review of research studies on so-called ‘predatory’ publishing, a new but fast-growing area of research, with a particular focus on the awareness of prospective authors about so-called ‘predatory’ publishing, the profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and the causal factors encouraging authors to publish in such outlets. It synthetizes the results of research studies on the topic to identify gaps and trends in the existing knowledgebase to guide further research. Results indicate so-called ‘predatory’ articles are authored by scholars from all fields and levels of academic experience rather than by inexperienced scholars only and ‘predatory’ contributions are not limited to developing countries, suggesting geographical location and author experience fail to explain the author profile of ‘predatory’ articles. Findings of this review suggest causal factors include research evaluation policies and publication pressure that emerge from the research environment in which scholars operate authors’ limited capacity to publish in ‘legitimate’ journals and conventions of so-called ‘predatory’ publishers. This indicates meaningful action might address all these factors in combination, rather than focus on them in isolation.

information science & library science
Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Serhat Kurt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150

2018-01-18

Learned Publishing

Abstract:This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK . Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency . Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.

information science & library science
Masquerade of authority: hijacked journals are gaining more credibility than original ones

Mihály Hegedűs,Mehdi Dadkhah,Lóránt D Dávid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2024-0082

2024-07-03

Abstract:At the moment, the academic world is faced with various challenges that negatively impact science integrity. One is hijacked journals, a second, inauthentic website for indexed legitimate journals, managed by cybercriminals. These journals publish any manuscript by charging authors and pose a risk to scientific integrity. This piece compares a journal's original and hijacked versions regarding authority in search engines. A list of 16 medical journals, along with their hijacked versions, has been collected. The MOZ Domain Authority has been used to check the authority of both original and hijacked journals, and the results have been discussed. It indicates that hijacked journals are gaining more credibility than original ones. This should alarm academia and highlights a need for serious action against hijacked journals. The related policies should be planned, and tools should be developed to support easy detection of hijacked journals. On the publishers' side, the visibility of journals' websites must be enhanced to address this issue.
Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

Brian Owens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q659

2024-03-27

BMJ

Abstract:Frontiers, like other for-profit open access publishers, has struggled with a perception it has low editorial standards and weak peer review. But is that true? Brian Owens reports

medicine, general & internal
Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

Jorge Vasconez-Gonzalez,Juan S. Izquierdo-Condoy,Patricio Naranjo-Lara,Miguel Ángel Garcia-Bereguiain,Esteban Ortiz-Prado

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1405424

IF: 3.9

2024-07-17

Frontiers in Medicine

Abstract:The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the “publish or perish” culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of “paper mills,” and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

medicine, general & internal
The Evolving Ecosystem of Predatory Journals: A Case Study in Indian Perspective

Naman Jain,Mayank Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.06856

2019-06-17

Abstract:Digital advancement in scholarly repositories has led to the emergence of a large number of open access predatory publishers that charge high article processing fees from authors but fail to provide necessary editorial and publishing services. Identifying and blacklisting such publishers has remained a research challenge due to the highly volatile scholarly publishing ecosystem. This paper presents a data-driven approach to study how potential predatory publishers are evolving and bypassing several regularity constraints. We empirically show the close resemblance of predatory publishers against reputed publishing groups. In addition to verifying standard constraints, we also propose distinctive signals gathered from network-centric properties to understand this evolving ecosystem better.

Digital Libraries
Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data

Anna Severin,Michaela Strinzel,Matthias Egger,Marc Domingo,Tiago Barros

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050270

IF: 3.006

2021-07-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives To describe and compare the characteristics of scholars who reviewed for predatory or legitimate journals in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour. Design Linkage of random samples of predatory journals and legitimate journals of the Cabells Scholarly Analytics’ journal lists with the Publons database, employing the Jaro-Winkler string metric. Descriptive analysis of sociodemographic characteristics and reviewing and publishing behaviour of scholars for whom reviews were found in the Publons database. Setting Peer review of journal articles. Participants Reviewers who submitted peer review reports to Publons. Measurements Numbers of reviews for predatory journals and legitimate journals per reviewer. Academic age of reviewers, the total number of reviews, number of publications and number of reviews and publications per year. Results Analyses included 183 743 unique reviews submitted to Publons by 19 598 reviewers. Six thousand and seventy-seven reviews were for 1160 predatory journals (3.31% of all reviews) and 177 666 reviews for 6403 legitimate journals (96.69%). Most scholars never submitted reviews for predatory journals (90.0% of all scholars); few scholars (7.6%) reviewed occasionally or rarely (1.9%) for predatory journals. Very few scholars submitted reviews predominantly or exclusively for predatory journals (0.26% and 0.35%, respectively). The latter groups of scholars were of younger academic age and had fewer publications and reviews than the first groups. Regions with the highest shares of predatory reviews were sub-Saharan Africa (21.8% reviews for predatory journals), Middle East and North Africa (13.9%) and South Asia (7.0%), followed by North America (2.1%), Latin America and the Caribbean (2.1%), Europe and Central Asia (1.9%) and East Asia and the Pacific (1.5%). Conclusion To tackle predatory journals, universities, funders and publishers need to consider the entire research workflow and educate reviewers on concepts of quality and legitimacy in scholarly publishing.

medicine, general & internal
Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

Guillaume Cabanac

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02747-1

IF: 64.8

2024-08-31

Nature

Abstract:Awareness of when a paper can't be trusted is often too low — but adopting some easy-to-use technological solutions can help researchers, publishers and referees to clean things up. Awareness of when a paper can't be trusted is often too low — but adopting some easy-to-use technological solutions can help researchers, publishers and referees to clean things up.

multidisciplinary sciences
Awareness of predatory publishing for Peruvian university professors and lecturers doing research

Carlos Sotomayor-Beltran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1775592

Abstract:Predatory open access journals and predatory conferences' main purpose is to make profit rather than promoting good science. In Peru, the University Law 30220 asks that professors and lecturers undertake research duties at universities. Hence, nowadays part of this academic staff is required to write scientific articles. However, not all of them are experienced on how to write a scholarly paper. Thus, in the rush to comply with the publication requirements that their individual institutions demand from them, a great number of these professors and lecturers are likely to fall prey of predatory publishing, which already is happening in other developing nations. This publishing method is not only unethical because it produces low-quality articles but also is an egregious mismanagement of the resources that universities allocate to fund research. Moreover, the time and effort that the academic staff put to the production of low-quality papers also completely go to waste. Professors and lecturers who follow these bad practices should be penalized; this also avoids the emergence of fraudulent research authorities. Thus, vice-rectorates for research in Peruvian universities should take corrective or preventive measures to promote the production of high-quality papers by part of their academic staff.
PubPeer: Scientific Assessment Without Metrics

Boris Barbour,Brandon M. Stell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0015

2020-01-01

Abstract:How the increasing reliance on metrics to evaluate scholarly publications has produced new forms of academic fraud and misconduct. The traditional academic imperative to “publish or perish” is increasingly coupled with the newer necessity of “impact or perish”—the requirement that a publication have “impact,” as measured by a variety of metrics, including citations, views, and downloads. Gaming the Metrics examines how the increasing reliance on metrics to evaluate scholarly publications has produced radically new forms of academic fraud and misconduct. The contributors show that the metrics-based “audit culture” has changed the ecology of research, fostering the gaming and manipulation of quantitative indicators, which lead to the invention of such novel forms of misconduct as citation rings and variously rigged peer reviews. The chapters, written by both scholars and those in the trenches of academic publication, provide a map of academic fraud and misconduct today. They consider such topics as the shortcomings of metrics, the gaming of impact factors, the emergence of so-called predatory journals, the “salami slicing” of scientific findings, the rigging of global university rankings, and the creation of new watchdogs and forensic practices. The open access edition of this book was made possible by generous funding from the UC Davis Library TOME Grant.
Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Anesthesiology

Andrea Cortegiani,Federico Longhini,Filippo Sanfilippo,Santi Maurizio Raineri,Cesare Gregoretti,Antonino Giarratano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000003803

2019-10-04

Abstract:Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model that applies charges under the pretense of legitimate publishing operations without actually providing the editorial services associated with legitimate journals. The aim of this study was to analyze this phenomenon in the field of anesthesiology and related specialties (intensive care, critical and respiratory medicine, pain medicine, and emergency care). Two authors independently surveyed a freely accessible, constantly updated version of the original Beall lists of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and standalone journals. We identified 212 journals from 83 publishers, and the total number of published articles was 12,871. The reported location of most publishers was in the United States. In 43% of cases (37/84), the reported location was judged as ‚Äúunreliable‚Äù after being checked using the 3-dimensional view in Google Maps. Six journals were indexed in PubMed. Although 6 journals were declared to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, none were actually registered. The median article processing charge was 634.5 US dollars (interquartile range, 275‚Äì1005 US dollars). Several journals reported false indexing/registration in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors registries and Google Scholar. Only 32% (67/212) reported the name of the editor-in-chief. Rules for ethics/scientific misconduct were reported in only 24% of cases (50/212). In conclusion, potential or probable predatory open-access publishers and journals are widely present in the broad field of anesthesiology and related specialties. Researchers should carefully check journals‚Äô reported information, including location, editorial board, indexing, and rules for ethics when submitting their manuscripts to open-access journals.

anesthesiology
"Research paper mills": A factory outlet for dubious research

Shubhada Nagarkar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2024.025

Abstract:The primary objective of any research, regardless of its domain such as health, technology, psychology, or any other subject, is to enhance the overall well-being of individuals. Rigorous processes are involved in conducting research ethically and in communicating its outcomes to society. However, as publishing research has become a mandatory requirement for career advancement and appointments, academics are resorting to several unethical practices to get substandard work published quickly. Consequently, predatory publishing markets have emerged, which publish data that is falsified and fabricated, along with plagiarised textual matter. The emergence of "paper mills" is a further step in the corruption of research, where a group of persons or automated systems generate papers for publication. Anyone desirous of publishing a paper can purchase one, akin to any desired fast-moving consumer product, with the added guarantee of publication in indexed journals. Therefore, paper mills and their unethical modus operandi are discussed in this paper in detail, with relevant examples. The article unfolds the consequences of publishing such fraudulent research papers and concludes with the challenges in combating paper mills.

Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Greetings from your predatory journal! What they are, why they are a problem, how to spot and avoid them

Paper trail

Journals need to provide better guidance for victims of plagiarism

[Plagiarism and predatory journals: A threat to scientific integrity]

"I'd like to think I'd be able to spot one if I saw one": How science journalists navigate predatory journals

Retractions: Stamp out fake peer review

Why do researchers decide to publish in questionable journals? A review of the literature

How to avoid being duped by predatory journals

Profile of authors publishing in ‘predatory’ journals and causal factors behind their decision: A systematic review

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

Masquerade of authority: hijacked journals are gaining more credibility than original ones

Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

Integrity at stake: confronting “publish or perish” in the developing world and emerging economies

The Evolving Ecosystem of Predatory Journals: A Case Study in Indian Perspective

Characteristics of scholars who review for predatory and legitimate journals: linkage study of Cabells Scholarly Analytics and Publons data

Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

Awareness of predatory publishing for Peruvian university professors and lecturers doing research

PubPeer: Scientific Assessment Without Metrics

Predatory Open-Access Publishing in Anesthesiology

"Research paper mills": A factory outlet for dubious research